REPORT ON 1992 FAI FREE FLIGHT WORLD CUP
by Ian Kaynes Chairman, CIAM FF Subcommittee March 1993
During 1992 there was again very good interest and participation in the Free Flight World Cup. Stefan Rumpp returned to the title of victor in F1A, a result which he had previously acheived in the three year 1987, 1988 and 1989. F1B was won by Bror Eimar of Sweden who won three competition and F1C by Koei Tsuda (A Japanese flyer residing in Australia) who needed to score four victories in order to win the World Cup. Tsuda made these four wins in Competitions in Australia and New Zealand, needing the fourth result to beat the next two F1C flyers who had both managed three victories while scoring points at six European contest. This demonstrates the fine balancing of European contests to the test of the world. By contrast F1E is an entirely European interest and the World Cup in this class was won by Ivan Treger with one victory and two third places.
ORGANISATION
The administration has run smoothly apart from three cases of exceptionally late return of results (Sisemol Cup Italy - 4 weeks, Gliwice Poland - 9 weeks, Eifel Pokal Germany - 7 weeks) and the other competition organisers have set a generally high standard for the speed and completeness of returned results. During the year results and news have been issued to organisers in the form of 7 issues of a World Cup newsletter.
ENTRIES FROM EX-USSR COUNTRIES
There have been some problems, particularly for the more popular competitions in western Europe, with the paperwork and support required for entries from eastern European countries, particular the constituents of the former USSR. For example, the Pampa Cup in Belgium had entries or attempted entries from 96 sportsmen of ex-USSR countries. To get a Benelux visa these people needed the host to guarantee their finances - accommodation costs, insurance, etc - impossibile particularly with so many applicataions. Even aside from the guarantee aspect, the paperwork - innumerable letters, phone calls and faxes for each person - represents an intense burden which can detract from other competition preparations.
COMPETITION IN YUGOSLAVIA
The Pan Cup held in Yugoslavia (Serbia) was the subject of consideration as to its continued eligibility in the light of United Nations action against Serbia the month before the event. A "clarification" from the FAI did not rule against the event continuing to count for the World Cup and so it has been supported. Competitors came only from Serbia; the fly-off was flown according to "local rules".
COMPETITION AT GLIWICE, POLAND
At the November 1992 Bureau meeting this had been submitted to the FAI Contest Calendar for the date August 20-23. However, soon afterwards this was changed to August 14 to 16th and this date was publicised and appeared in the latest FAI Contest Calendar as published at the CIAM Plenary meeting in March 1992.
However, the competition was actually flown on the later date. This caused considerable problems and there was poor communications from the organisers, for example one competitor from Finland travelled to Poland for the other date and a competitor from USA stayed in Poland for both weekends to be sure to cover the options. A condition of the World Cup is that the event be on the FAI Sporting Calendar and this did not apply to the event on the date it was flown. At the November 1992 meeting the CIAM Bureau ruled that the competition could not count for the World Cup.
SIERRA CUP
Another problem concerned the Sierra Cup in California. At the end of the seven rounds there was a large grass fire which prevented any further flying. Competitors awaiting flyoffs numbered 7 in F1A, 5 in F1B and 12 in F1C and these were all tied in first place. Under the new rule passed at the 1992 Plenary meeting and brought in to be effective immediately the points for a tie are determined by equally dividing the points which would have been given to that number of places if the tie had been resolved. The application of this rule was confirmed by the Bureau at the November 1992. A World Cup protest was made against this distribution of points. This has been considered by a jury of three members of the Free Flight Sucommittee. The jury rejected the protest, while noting that communication for passing CIAM decisions to the competitors can be poor in some countries.
1992 STATISTICS
Number of competitors per country, only those scoring points in 2 or more events:
|
F1A |
F1B |
F1C |
F1E |
ALL |
|
NZL 7 |
GER 9 |
GER 8 |
CS 10 |
GER 25 |
|
GER 6 |
NZL 7 |
GBR 6 |
AUT 5 |
NZL 16 |
|
SWE 6 |
RUS 6 |
UKR 6 |
ITA 3 |
UKR 16 |
|
USA 6 |
UKR 6 |
HUN 5 |
GER 2 |
CS 15 |
|
NED 5 |
SWE 5 |
USA 5 |
POL 1 |
SWE 14 |
|
UKR 4 |
HUN 4 |
SWE 3 |
ROM 1 |
USA 13 |
|
CS 3 |
GBR 3 |
AUS 2 |
HUN 11 |
|
|
DEN 3 |
NOR 3 |
CS 2 |
RUS 11 |
|
|
FIN 3 |
AUS 2 |
NZL 2 |
GBR 10 |
|
|
RUS 3 |
ESP 2 |
POL 2 |
AUT 7 |
|
|
BEL 2 |
FIN 2 |
RUS 2 |
NED 7 |
|
|
ESP 2 |
NED 2 |
AUT 1 |
FIN 6 |
|
|
FRA 2 |
USA 2 |
CAN 1 |
ESP 5 |
|
|
HUN 2 |
DEN 1 |
ESP 1 |
AUS 4 |
|
|
AUT 1 |
EST 1 |
FIN 1 |
DEN 4 |
|
|
CAN 1 |
FRA 1 |
FRA 1 |
FRA 4 |
|
|
EST 1 |
ITA 1 |
JPN 1 |
ITA 4 |
|
|
GBR 1 |
SUI 1 |
NOR 1 |
NOR 4 |
|
|
LIT 1 |
POL 3 |
|||
|
BEL 2 |
||||
|
CAN 2 |
||||
|
EST 2 |
||||
|
JPN 1 |
||||
|
LIT 1 |
||||
|
ROM 1 |
||||
|
SUI 1 |
|
F1A |
F1B |
F1C |
F1E |
|
|
Number of competitions |
23 |
23 |
23 |
6 |
|
Number of competitors scoring points: |
||||
|
in 1 event |
144 |
126 |
63 |
23 |
|
in 2 events |
38 |
29 |
29 |
8 |
|
in 3 events |
9 |
21 |
12 |
11 |
|
in 4 events |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
|
in 5 events |
6 |
3 |
3 |
- |
|
in 6 events |
1 |
2 |
2 |
- |
|
in 7 events |
0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
in 8 events |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Total number of competitors |
203 |
184 |
113 |
45 |
Total numbers of entries in all four classes: 2378